previews the south carolina primary. later, a georgetown university law professor david cole talks about the status of guantanamo bay. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: the final push is on in south carolina leading up to these -- to the primary next saturday. there are two debates this week. the polls are showing that mitt romney has a double-digit lead in that state. in washington, the president will commemorate the martin luther king holiday tomorrow with a project in the district of columbia. tomorrow is a federal holiday and then it is a back to work tuesday when congress returns.

we will focus this morning on a piece of this morning that had a number of was discussing a the future of the country. robert kagan has the column in "the new republic." do you think the united states is in decline? this is what the cover story looks like.

more coming up in a moment but some of the other had lies in the sunday look-alike they are focusing on south carolina. this is from "the state" is paper. -- the south's oldest daily newspaper is in south carolina.

those are some of the headlines but let's begin with the words of robert kagan as he focuses on whether or not you think the united states is in decline. is the united states in decline is our question. you can answer by yes or no and the numbers are on your screen and you can send us an e-mail at hournal.cspan.org. we will have the president of the southern baptist commission. we chatted about the role of conservatives and evangelicals will play in the upcoming

primary and november elections and we talked about the current field in the gop race. here is more. [video clip] >> if mr. runyan continues to be competitive against obama and the social conservative is not able to convince people that he is equally viable against mr. obama in a general election campaign, then mr. romney will be the nominee. do not underestimate barack obama + unique ability to unite social conservatives around whomever he is running against a general election. host: our conversation with

richard land. he is the president of the southern baptist commission. this is a related headline from " the new york times" -- later this week, senator santorum will join us on c-span to take your calls on friday, 7:00 eastern time, the day before the south carolina primary. elizabeth is on the telephone from long island, new york. why is america on the decline? go ahead. caller: i feel the morals in

this country and the way we treat other countries and the way we have always treated other countries, we have to change. you wonder why people hate us and people don't want to live like us but they want to come over here and live here. on the other hand, when you go to the far east, they want to live the way they want to lead and we force them to try to live the way we are because we feel their life is not the way we want it. they wonder why they dislike us and hate us and want to kill us. host: this is from twitter -- next is chris from all -- also from long island. is america in decline? go ahead.

you are on the air. caller: i am from atlanta a. we are the richest country in the world by far. host: let's go back to robert kagan -- the exertion of influence has always been a struggle. good morning, where are you calling from? caller: i'm from ottumwa, iowa.

it is definitely in decline. it is very bad. we elected this president for four years. i don't have to agree with everything he does. we should try to work with him and make the country better, not worse. we are going backwards. host: where are you phoning from? go ahead, you are on the air. caller: this is leonard rogers. host: we are having a problem with the phone system but go ahead. caller: i vote yes. host: wide use say that? caller: this did not happen overnight. it has become a long time. it was before i was born and i am 65 when they debase to the dollar.

when war was declared on christians people just seem to let the media walk in any direction they want and they think is cool to quote some newsmen without looking at the truth of things. i think it is time for someone like ron paul. everyone says he is radical but i think we need a radical turn. we need to turn hard right. host: thank you for that call. the question is -- is the united states in decline? where are you phoning from? you are on the air. good morning. caller: i don't believe it is in

decline. america has always been -- from the outside, we look splintered and going in 20 different directions at once. the reality is that america has always been that way. the only time we really unite and show our muscle is when we are attacked. you could go back through history and see that. is the united states in decline? no. is america in decline? absolutely not. i think americans have always been able to step back and be quiet about things in the world. as far as economics, we have come off a decade of spending like crazy, doing things we should not be doing in foreign countries and now it is time for us to rebuild ourselves and take a deep breath and say things are not that bad, they will get better. host: robert kagan --

the question is -- is the united states in decline? john on the phone from virginia, you say yes? caller: good morning, everybody. we had a corporate coup in 2000

and that started the beginning of this total domination of politics by the corporate elite. we had corporations that acted with impunity and they can get away with it. we need to take control back from the corporations by getting some kind of campaign finance reform. host: andrew from st. louis, what is your answer? is the united states in decline? caller: i would say it is not. the reason why it looks like it is because we don't have enough force in the democratic party anymore and the republicans are taking over and they don't tell people the real truth in the news media that they are the real people who caused us to be in decline.

people should understand what is going on with the country. president obama took this country over in a bad state. the republican party has not given him three votes in three years. that is very bad. host: you can join the conversation on line. robert kagan says -- you can read more on this article in "the new republic." ron is joining us from texas. caller: i say we are definitely in decline and the reason why is the gridlock in washington and

the reason for the gridlock in washington is the rules of the senate. we have to address our inability to do anything because of the rules of the senate. host: thank you for the call. jennifer steinhauer has this story --

next is a caller -- jim from -- where are you calling from? caller: oklahoma. the country is definitely in decline and is not just because of obama. probably for 50 years the seven going down but obama has increased it tenfold. for years, he blamed bush and now he is blaming the congress but the problem is him and his policies. ron paul should be the only choice of anyone and he is the one that will stop the republican and democratic machine that is destroying this country. host: from "cq weekly" ---

where are you falling from? caller: georgia. we are in decline but we are in decline because of our debt. debt is forcing us to reevaluate our priorities domestically and internationally. while we are currently in decline, that is the reason why ron paul is picking up support. people understand our situation and are reacting to it in a way that would fiscally bring us back into some balance. some say it will always be that way. i agree with the article in some ways but this is a temporary situation and we could regain our predominance. we have to get our debts to jordan under control or we are toast. host: the front page of today's "washington post" --

below that as a look of the south carolina primary -- lowry is joining us from ohio and you say why is america and not in decline? caller: i think we are too great to be in decline. we are on the verge of robbing ourselves apart because we cannot discuss anything agree we cannot agree on anything.

it is not one way or the other. the answer is in the middle that we need to find and nobody seems to want to. that will end up tearing us apart. we are not in decline as a nation but if we can't get together and try to figure out what our main problems are, then what hope is there? we're not in decline. host: ben goldfarb from "cq weely"---

more than once obama tried to reach a grand bargain with john boehner to raise taxes and cut entitlement spending next is sean joining us from tennessee. caller: we are in decline. i think so very much. this president has split the country right down the middle. everybody says it is republicans. i am independent. he does not want to work with republicans. the only ones to work with his own party. -- he only wants to work with his own party.

he has spent a year on that path and did not focus on anything but obamacare. i think it is a shame we have people that don't want to cooperate with one another. host: thank you for the call. here's a comment from our twitter pager -- is america in decline? we want to get your thoughts yes or no to that question. robert kagan outlined his recommendations in "the new republic" --

you can read the entire line on peace. we have the worst week in washington in this column from "the youth -- the washington post" there is news this morning from "the state"newspaper. the newspaper endorsed john

hulsman as a true conservative with a record and platform a bold economic reform. that is the editorial from south carolina's largest newspaper," the state." is america in decline? caller: i don't believe america is in decline.

when i am honest with myself and think about what time i would rather live in if i could magically go back in time -- what i want to live in the time when we were threatened by the soviet union? what i want to give up the medical advances we have seen? i see a lot of things to be hopeful about. i see signs that we can make things better. i am hopeful and i think america is not in decline. host: thank you for the call. caller: i would say that short- term economic problems and global change our cause for alarm among the masses but the future is bright. host: from joe--

is america in decline? robert kagan writes -- next is a caller from virginia, good morning. caller: good morning. i believe we are in decline and it is heartbreaking. i think it began in recent history, in the 1960's, and with the johnson in new deal. our culture has continued to beat coarser and coarser. our entry into the world trade organization has made us un

competitive. we cannot compete with china and india's slave wages. we are told what we can make and what jobs we can have and what those two, china or india or whatever -- we are seemingly being led towards socialism. it does not work. it has not worked anywhere else so why would it work for us now? anyway, it is very sad and i hope the election will bring us to a leader with a different direction, thank you. host: thank you for the call. we are asking if america is in decline. this stems and the article by robert kagan in "the new

republic." here is a story from " the new york times." that is the story this morning

from inside " the new york times." back to you the question of whether or not you think america is in decline. amy is joining us from michigan. caller: i don't think it is. i think this is the dawning of the age of aquarius. usually get our cards right. this symbolizes the intuitive mind and the water being poured from the jobs represents the order of new life. hopefully, we can get it right. host: thanks for the call. from "the washington examiner" --

back to your calls -- bill is joining us from massachusetts -- is america in decline? caller: yeah s, it has. we have become the picture of

dorian gray. the only have to watch "washington journal" a couple of weeks to see how polarized and angry and uninformed and divided this country is. people will feel totally alone, scared, and disenfranchised. this is the unintended result of lyndon johnson pause on funded great society. if obama wins, the uninformed on the left will continue to drag america with them. have a good day. host: this is from our twitter page -- next is john from connecticut,

good morning. caller: i said no because i think it is kind of propaganda like the sky is falling so everyone is blaming the masses. instead of saying if we were to pull together and focus, we could achieve more. this, but more that washington is saying that the sky is falling and everything is wrong and we blame each other. i think we're just misguided. host: thank you for the call. from "the news and observer," "bank money flows to mitt romney."

host: from "the los angeles times," this is a local story, we should point out, "accepting federal help while calling for cuts," -- host: finally, from "the boston globe," "cruise ship runs aground in italy." host: a similar story and a similar photograph on the front page this morning of "the new york times." john is joining us from wyoming.

new york, i should say. go ahead, john. caller: good morning. i think that american economic power has declined as a portion of the world economic output. that is one thing in favor of the decline argument. more importantly, things are getting harder for more americans. people in general, the middle class. it is due to the greed of what you would call the 1%. if you look at the tax rates under fdr in the 1955 and 1965, when the country was growing -- 1950's and 1960's, when the country was growing, there was this image of a society that was strong and took care of its people. the most disturbing thing from callers who think that the reason it is happening is

because we have a socialist president, it is in fact because of the greed of the top 1%. as soon as people realize the, we can start working up. host: this from michael -- host: we will be focusing on evangelicals and social conservatives on "newsmakers." here's a preview. bob clip: newt gingrich has exciting ideas on how to fix the economy and was intimately involved in balancing the budget when he was speaker of the house. you have a perry with the economic miracle that is texas. it is an act -- economic miracle. it is amazing what happens when

you have a pro-business climate. when you are a low tax, pro- business state, it attracts people. people voted with their feet. not just companies, but people. texas is getting four new congressman as a result of the 2010 census. that has never happened before in the history of the republic. huge population growth. then you have rick santorum, who "the wall street journal," said that he had interesting ideas. being pro-life and pro- traditional marriage, that is not enough. they have got to bring some street read to the table when it comes to their economic expertise and record. host: that is richard land, on

"newsmakers," this morning. and from "the daily news," this story points out that politics in the bible belt is a surprisingly dirty business. host: a political reporter from "the state newspaper," will be joining us from -- in about 15 minutes. is america in decline? a question that robert keagan posed in "the new republic."

host: is america in decline? harry, michigan, good morning to you. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. host: certainly. caller: america is not in decline. this is just ridiculous, you know? we have a president, you know? a black president who has a very high international rating because he is doing the right thing. you do not see the terrorist videos anymore, osama bin laden and that gang, videos bragging about what it will do to the united states. we are attacking the terrorists anywhere the we can find them. i think that the president is fighting for health care for all americans and, frankly, for jobs. but i do not see how he could be

any more successful continuing against these republicans who are suffering from jim crow and segregation. they will not cooperate. they cannot. it is not in their genes. this president is fighting hard. the only people attacking america are these politicians trying to the great america. they have hundreds of millions of dollars in the bank. all i can talk about is how bad america is. host of this from mary -- -- host: this from mary -- host: in the meanwhile -- in the meantime, more on mitt romney and bain capital.

host: that is the editorial from "the new york times," this morning. "the weekly standard," had this story, "can the mitt romney juggernaut be derailed"? early polls indicate that mitt romney is ahead in south carolina. christine is joining us -- actually, we will be joined by terence. caller: i do not think we are in decline. i believe that every president that this country has had -- right now, the year 2012, obama,

god did not put him in the white house to fail. he is the president for everyone. every man, woman, and child in this country. thank you. host: this from top lindbergh, "why would gop candidates vying to establish themselves as the conservative alternative in that romney attacked the onetime finance year practice of free economics? answer -- because he is vulnerable on that point."

host: from inside of "the weekly standard." kentucky, is america in decline? caller: yes, i would most definitely say so. good morning, by the way. i would say that between the media bias and political correctness, the left is dumbing down america. we are ranked 17th in the world on education. no one talks about being no. 1. i kind of take issue with c- span, sometimes, allowing al- jazeera a seat at the table. things that they have shown, americans and british people getting their heads cut off. for instance, debbie wasserman

schultz, the things that she says on a daily basis. msnbc, saying things like right wing slut and getting suspended. lawrenceo'donnell -- o'donnell admitting that he is a socialist. van jones, a communist, getting into the white house. i would definitely say that america is in decline. host: from russell, on our twitter page -- host: let me go back to the words of robert keeton. he concludes with this point.

host: again, from "the new republic," which is where we're basing our question from this morning. do you think the united states is in decline? victor, good morning. caller: we are not in decline yet. we have one last chance to save ourselves. we must vote obama out of office. we must vote for every liberal who voted for obama care out of office. if this is not successful, the left will be successful and then we will see a decline of the united states. for me, the biggest sign of decline will be when the left is successful at taking rush limbaugh out -- off the

airwaves. i do not hear him on the radio anymore, that is when i know this country is doomed. host: thank you for the call. nancy, in oklahoma. is america in decline? caller: partially in decline. there is too much funding going to different ethnic groups to promote their athleticism, however you say that. we have got to be americans and have our different cultures, but when it comes right down to it, we have all got to be for america. the government should stop funding different racial groups that is government funded. racism -- racism. although this country has made

great strides in the races getting along the other, we seem to be pulling backwards in that area. that will cause a decline from the inside. we have all got to be americans. in the eyes of government, all races should be equally valuable. host: thank you for the call. robert kagan says -- host: daniel, new york, good morning, is the united states in decline? caller: i do not think that it is. my own family background, i and world war ii, everyone was

struggling and working class. we have all moved upwards. looking at a country that is forever changing and getting better, we will bounce back even higher as i look at the rates of african-americans and hispanic people, more and more of them have college degrees and are living a lifestyle that they could never have hope for in the 1940's. i think that the united states is constantly falling into a valley, but bouncing up again like on a trampoline. host: bill has this point on our twitter page -- host: again, the cover story of "the new republic," looks like this, "the myth of american decline," by robert kagan.

a lengthy piece. it is also available online. and this from "the washington post." "who does mitt romney remind me of"?

host: that was the impression that "saturday at live," call last night. this, courtesy of nbc. clip: we enjoyed new hampshire as well. unfortunately, that victory was clouded by a bit of a careful by a remark that i made the day before. i was speaking to a crowd about the importance of being able to choose your insurance company. i said that when a service provider is not doing the job, you have to make a change. adding that i like to be able to fire people. the audience understood what i was saying. it is like when you are breaking leaves in the art in your teacher is clammy, you go inside and fire it. [laughter] you replace it with a dry teacher, or no t-shirt. some of my opponents immediately pounced on that remark and tried to relate it to my work at bane capital.

sometimes our work involved individuals being fired. that is in the sense of losing their jobs. but that was the exception, not the rule. host: that was the opening skit on last night's "saturday night live," program. from the editorial page of [unintelligible] jon huntsman, who is in the single digits in south carolina. we will take a quick look at some of the other programs and guests in the topics this morning. nancy, good morning. rears of the five tv talk shows be in a noon eastern -- re-airs of the five tv talk

shows begin at noon. "meet the press," with david gregory, has harry reid. and newt gingrich. from south carolina, senators lindsey gant -- gramm and congressman tim scott. on "this week," on abc, steven cole bebert. "fox news sunday," rick tyler, on the video "winning our future." on "state of the union," rick perry and david axelrod on the president obama 2012 campaign. plus, reverend brad atkins and bob jones, chancellor bob jones university.

finally, at 4:00 p.m. eastern, "face the nation." also, a discussion with the author of the new book, the obama -- "the obamas." listen to them all on c-span radio in the washington, d. spent -- washington, d.c. area. listen to it nationwide on satellite radio. or online, c-span.org. >> i believe that it is important to emphasize that while it is great to have this memorial added to his memory, having streets and schools and

hospitals named in his honor, it is also important to not place too much emphasis on martin luther king the idol, but not enough emphasis on the ideals of martin luther king jr.. and >> take a look at the legacy of dr. martin luther king jr., online, on the c-span video library. >> in this episode of fact check video, we are going to take a look at rick perry and the science behind his climate change research. >> a substantial number of scientists have manipulated data. and >> what i'd do is i raise different comments by politicians. if you say something that is completely outrageous, if you see something that is misleading or out of context, you might get

just one pinocchio. >> in his column, glenn kessler discusses the veracity of political -- of politicians. >> even when it has been pointed out there saying something untrue, and they just say it anyways. >> tonight, at 8:00, on "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from columbia, outh carolina, adam beenan, thank you for being with us. guest: thank you for having me. host: your story this morning focuses on jobs, which has gotten rich. least one supporter in the state. hoping for a campaign revival in

south carolina. what is happening with his candidacy? caller: -- guest: south carolina was supposed to be a slam-dunk for rick perry. he announced his candidacy in charleston. the first week that he was here, i followed him to a couple of restaurants in the state and he was a rock star. and at that point it looked like you is going to win. he was lining of this in -- all of these important endorsements. i think that the debates heard him. i think that some of the hit he took on immigration heard him here as well. he has never been able to recover from that. it is also par for the course, south carolina in this election cycle.

the polls have been such a roller coaster. michele bachmann was the leader for a while. herman cain lead for a while. then rick perry. he has not been able to rebound since. and host: what about the number of jobs he created as texas governor? it happened at the same time the the national unemployment rate jumped. what have we seen in texas, in terms of the unemployment rate? guest: under the leadership of governor perry, the unemployment rate has nearly doubled. it jumped from 4% to 8%. in texas, there are almost 2 million more jobs there and when he started, but the doubling of the unemployment rate means that

there are about twice as many people that do not have a job in texas. i asked him about this earlier this week. his explanation was that the texas reputation for creating jobs was so great that people are just moving there in droves. he said we are good, but not that good. he quoted some statistics saying that 1300 people move into texas every day, the reason -- which is the reason he gave for the unemployment rate going up so much. host: we have focused on editorials in this race. your newspaper today, endorsing jon huntsman, saying that he could bring us back together again. first of all, what kind of reaction have you been getting from this editorial? secondly, what kind of support is jon huntsman getting across the state?

guest: it has only been out for a few hours, so not that much reaction, but some of his supporters are very excited. we will have to see if it is translated into any kind of momentum for jon huntsman. he got in the game early. he hired on some well known and veteran local strategists. he got some key endorsements. and it was almost like jon huntsman was trying to set himself up to be the establishment republican candidate, which if you look at the history of the south carolina republican primary, they have always favored that candidate. unfortunately for huntsman, there is another guy, mitt romney, who already has the title right now. there has not been much of an opening for huntsman. if you look of bondsman campaign and the romney campaign, the

type of voters they're going after, fiscal conservative voters, who care more about economic issues and social issues, they tend to be concentrated along the coast and, to a certain extent, in the midlands. mitt romney and jon huntsman appeared to be only candidates who are going after those voters substantially. there are a couple political experts here that think that jon huntsman could hurt mitt romney in that way and that he might want to think about his strategy with jon huntsman going forward. this strategy could cut into the base of mitt romney. host: if you wish to call in, with a special number for callers from south carolina. otherwise, numbers as usual on the bottom of the screen. send us it twitter message twitter.com/c-spanwj, -- you can

also send us a twitter message at twitter.com/c-spanwj. "we need someone who understands negotiations are essential to representative democracy and that there are good ideas across the political spectrum. someone with a well-defined set of core values but is not so rigid that he ignores new conditions. we think that mr. romney could demonstrate those, but mr. huntsman already does." your reaction? guest: i do not have much of a reaction to that. that is the opinion of the state newspaper editorial board. i am not a member of the board and have no say in what they write. i simply cover the political process in south carolina. i think that is the narrative that jon huntsman would like to

adopt. he would like to see the primary voters adopt that as a path for him to gain some momentum. host: let me ask you about the other part of that narrative, which was put on the air by mike huckabee. he sat down with five candidates, including newt gingrich. the ground rules was no criticism of other candidates. here's part of the exchange. clip: governor mitt romney ran saying that he created 100,000 jobs in the private sector. and clip: we have said that we would not allow negative comments. foot go in and try to answer the question. i believe that it is fair to ask for the records to be clear. my total record is clear, as i helped to found four small companies. i think that to ask questions about a particular company is

not the same as attacking capitalism and i do not see how you and expect to have a presidential campaign in which -- in which an entire sector is avoided. i guarantee you, if we avoid it, our nominee in the fall is not going to find that obama avoids it at all. every single candidate has to be prepared to answer the question before the nomination so that we know that whoever renominate is capable of surviving the fall campaign. host: that was yesterday on the "the fox news channel." that seemed to be much of the news that came out of the forum. what was your sense of the comments from the former house speaker, newt gingrich? guest: i was not surprised by them. the speaker has made an did a pretty big part of his campaign, attacking the mitt romney record at bain capital.

newt gingrich has a super pac that has spent a substantial amount of money here. just last week, several of the station managers at the local television stations here told me that the newt gingrich campaign were shocked -- shopping around, trying to purchase half of an hour of time that paints mitt romney as this greedy, job killing businessman. it makes perfect sense that newt gingrich would try to continue that. mitt romney is the front runner here. according to the polls, newt gingrich is a in second place. of course he is going to go after mitt romney to eat away at that support. host: this is from "the daily news." a focus on some of the past issues that have come up in south carolina presidential

primaries. also, what does the current governor said about the charges of adultery from two years ago? why is south carolina so legendary in the town of its politics. guest: i think a lot of it has to do with our position on the calendar. our voters vote early, but not first. we go after iowa and new hampshire. this campaign is already very well defined. a lot of shots had been taken. by the time the candidates and the campaigns arrived in south carolina, they have a lot to be angry about. especially in this cycle, south carolina tends to be the last stage for a host of candidates. rick perry, rick santorum, they both need to do well here. if they do not do well here, even if they do not win here, it

could be the end of their campaign. there will be no tomorrow. they're trying to do everything that they can to continue their campaign. when you get a situation like that, it opens the door for this kind of dirty reputation politics. host: the headline this morning, from tampa, "victory would give the front runner a clear path to the nomination." our first caller is from conway, south carolina. ed, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. ought yes, america is in decline. south carolina is a perfect example of that. people do not want that scumbag,

they want ron paul. we want to be free. we have a president who is trying to be a king and people who are playing politics with money. this system is sick. it has been in decline since they started murdering babies. there is a war going on in this country. host: reaction or comment? guest: not much to say it to that. many people i've criticized governor haley. some people wonder for endorsement of mitt romney would be a hindrance more than a help. she has spent a lot of time on stage introducing him. any time a sitting governor gets involved in a primary, it will definitely make a difference.

host: mitt romney, said that his record, which include buying and shutting down companies, it is the same as the obama record." can you elaborate on these stories? guest: first, the gina smith story. we have seen that narrative come up a lot. why would you attack governor romney on the free enterprise argument in a primary race? particularly because that is the argument that president obama is most likely to use and is, effectively, already using. why would you use that against that romney? we have seen a lot of candidates backed off of that rhetoric.

with my story, mitt romney made those comments in an interview with the state editorial board. it was just trying to say that if he is the nominee, this is how he would defend the attacks. investing money into private companies, making them better. i sometimes had to make tough decisions for that to happen. by giving lots of money to the auto industry, some people lost their jobs. i think that he would try to say that what he did was the same as what obama did in detroit. host: this headline, from "the new york times," "criticism over

time that bain capital." the criticism is that this could be old news. guest: a great point. especially because the democrats and the obama campaign committee are already pushing that narrative. by the time that we get to labor day, the american public could be tired of hearing about it. host: next, one of the staunchest supporters of mitt romney, a local talk show host that we chat with frequently. welcome to "the washington journal." caller: i want to phrase your screen there. you have done a great job, and c-span has done a great job covering the election. i was the small businessman of the year in 1975. i am getting calls from all

types of business people saying that they are for mitt romney. newt gingrich is from my home state. i know him personally. i like him, but he has made a huge mistake attacking the running. 35% now support mitt romney. in the latest poll in south carolina, it looks like mitt romney is point to tie up this nomination pretty quickly. steve, you do an incredible job. host: joe, always nice to hear from you. thank you so much. adam, your response? guest: it is not impossible, especially given the nature of the race and how many candidates have made such huge gains in a short amount time.

iowa is a great example of that with rick santorum, who surged tremendously in the days leading up to the primary. yesterday we had a group of 150 evangelical conservative leaders that met at a private ranch in houston tx and came out to say that they would endorse rick santorum, attempting to push evangelicals across the country to rally around rick santorum in a last-minute push. who knows what could happen in this coming week. with so many candidates in the race providing for those same blocs of voters to present a hindrance, it would not be impossible. i talked about this a little bit before. the south carolina history always tries to go with the

establishment candidate. host: let's go back to this story, from "the new york times." "to what extent will those attending the meeting be able to mobilize their followers behind rick santorum? it remains unclear. the leaders did not directly ask -- host: next, rebecca, ohio. welcome to the program. caller: i agree with the governor of georgia -- of georgia. thank god for c-span. host: joe will appreciate the elevation to state of governor from talk show host. caller: i thought he said the was the governor. [laughter]

here is what gets me as an observer. i try to watch from the right, left, and center, and read from the right, left, and center. i know that washington journal showed a poll yesterday where ron paul was in third place in south carolina. there is no way i would vote for him and his domestic issues, but on foreign policy he breaks down the wall through both parties, as well as independents, on his foreign-policy stances. he is not anti-war, he is anti- unnecessary wars. a huge number of military people back him up. unless i stepped out of the room, i do not believe that you have talked about ron paul either. yesterday, joe scarborough did not even bring up ron paul.

chris matthews or and those guys, they insult and ignore him. i am fascinated by this pushing of ron paul off to the side. i have asked c-span to do a program on this article on foreign policy about mossad agents attempting to recruit people in pakistan to go into iran. the major media is not talking about this, but you can read the article. on lot -- read the article online. guest: that is a good point. ron paul is ignored, to a certain extent, in south carolina. part of the reason for that is the he always seems to have his supporters here, and that is it. he always seems to be stuck in the 12% mark. this election cycle does seem to be doing very well.

i like what the caller said about giving second place in new hampshire. but he has been kind of invisible in south carolina lately. the other candidates are holding three, five events per day. ron paul has had one event since he has been here, that i know of. he is not on the ground that much here, although his campaign says that they will get a monumental endorsement from a rural beach -- merkel beach later today. i think that ron paul does have some problems. this is a very pro-military state. some of his views, including closing of a foreign military bases and pulling everyone backed, i have heard a lot of people in south carolina saying

they have a problem with that. host: we are covering an event with rick santorum in south carolina later today. two polls and we want to ship -- share with you, this survey was conducted in concluded on friday if at reuters. another survey showing mitt romney ahead, with 29%, newt gingrich in second, and ron paul with 15%. here are some of the advertisements on the air in south carolina. clip: what has massachusetts given us? a liberal governor. a liberal senator. a massachusetts moderate who runs away from ronald reagan. clip: i was an independent at the time of reagan-bush.

i am not trying to return to reagan-bush. clip: romney chose the democrats. voting for a liberal democrat instead of president george h. w. bush. he raised taxes and offered government health care that funded taxpayer abortions. massachusetts moderate, mitt romney. he will say anything to win. clip: [speaking french] clip: he speaks french as well. and he is still a massachusetts moderate. a massachusetts moderate cannot be barack obama. host: your reaction? guest: one of the interesting things raised in this advertisement is the issue of electability. that seems to be a common attack

against mitt romney. that he is too moderate, too similar, even, to president obama. traveling around the state this week, with governor perry, he said -- why would we want to change out someone in the white house with someone who is only a little bit better, in his words. that issue of electability seems to be gaining some traction amongst rival campaigns. one thing to keep in mind is that south carolinian is, like i said earlier, electability is a big thing for them as well. especially republicans. in every primary since 1980, the eventual winner of the nomination has had to win south carolina. something the republicans do not take lightly. that is very important to them. they look for that in a

candidate. if you can try to get this narrative going, it could be one way to try to hurt him. host: john, welcome to the conversation. caller: how're you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: this country is going down the hill. i got in on a job on the 15th and they fired me the next day. i have been trying to get them to call me back. i cannot find a lawyer that will take this case. i do not understand, is that why republicans do not want unions? i do not understand what the republicans are trying to do to us. i have been struggling ever since. host: thank you for the call.

how this is sentiment shore up with the story that euro about south carolina? guest go as far as labor unions, south carolina historically has not been friendly to labor unions. i do not think that any candidate could run on a platform that was pro-labor and do well. as soon as rick santorum started surging after iowa, it appeared the that would be a tactic used against him. during his time in pennsylvania, which has unions, he had a couple of pro-union votes. it appeared that would be a way to attack him there. you have mitt romney, rick perry, everyone campaigning against the decision to attack

the move of a boeing plant. host: responding to the advertisement that we just aired -- host: again, the overall narrative is trying to draw a record between mitt romney, michael dukakis, and john kerry. guest: that would appear to be the case. it does seem to be unusual. but it is not something we have not seen before. i have seen advertisements attacking jon huntsman for speaking mandarin. as you know, he was the ambassador to china and is fluent in that language. i have seen advertisements criticizing him for speaking that language, implying that he would be too great of a friend to china. host: edgar, welcome to

"washington journal." caller: i wanted to make just a few comments. i am a conservative republican they used to be a libertarian. to begin with, i believe in the newt gingrich assessment of mitt romney. i read his book, where he said the highest we could spend on defense would be gross domestic pot -- product at 6%. the chinese have developed a stealth fighter, and they criticize ron paul. innocent american citizens die in car accidents, as far as legalizing narcotics.

and the economy, we will need to reform the federal reserve, but not put an end to it. a national currency generates huge economies of scale. my vote would be for the more experienced and knowledgeable speaker of the house, newt gingrich. thank you very much. and your program is great. host: let me use his comments to let the audience see with your seen across the state. this is the latest from the mitt romney campaign. >> i am a founding member of -- clip: i am a founding member of women affirming life. the pro-life movement is all about changing hearts and minds and expressing that it is unfortunate that mitt romney has

been criticized by some people for coming to the pro-life division on the basis of information. that is what the pro-life movement is all about. he expended much of his political capital in suspending pro-life measures -- 85% of that legislature is democratically controlled. mitt romney vetoed legislation that would have prevented the destruction of embryonic research and he vetoed the over- the-counter sale of the morning after pill. he supported abstinence education in school. governor romney was a great friend to the pro-life movement in massachusetts in a very difficult political environment. we were always welcomed by governor romney. he was a great pro-life governor

and he will be a great pro-life president. host of that advertisement is available online, at the mitt romney web site. the mitt romney juggernaut been derailed, that being the cover story, going back to the issue of abortion we should point out that when he ran for senate, he ran as a pro-choice candidate. that obviously change when he became the governor of massachusetts won back it later. guest: right. i think that that web- advertisement is fascinating. turning his flip-flop on abortion into an asset. you have this person who has been involved in the pro-life movement saying that the movement is about changing hearts and minds. we changed the mind of mitt romney. in this war that we are in, to

try to win this argument, that is what we are trying to do. trying to turn that into an asset. the second thing that is interesting about that advertisement, it shows that governor romney is not just going to abandon the conservative evangelical vote. a lot of people have tried to say that all the guests to do is when the conservative fiscal voters, and this shows that he will go after them. we will keep that conversion in mind. a lot of republicans look at that skeptically because it was done in the context of a political campaign. if it had been done outside of that realm, they would have been more willing to except that. especially with evangelical voters. host: melvin is on the phone.

good morning to you. melvin, go ahead, please. we will go on to steven, indiana. caller: i do not know why anyone would vote for any republican. if they get in, they are wanting to get rid of the minimum wage, social security, medicare. what are these people thinking? host: any response to that? obviously a wrist -- supporter of the president. guest only to say that most republicans would disagree. host: our guest is with the state newspaper in south carolina, one of the largest newspapers there.

adam beam guest: you will see a lot of forms on the schedule. there are a couple more scheduled throughout the week. the candidates come out one at a time. they all come out together in the same place. what is interesting about that is that governor romney has not shied away from those events. he tends to show up in those nationally televised events and he goes around the state's with

this rally. it would be interesting to see if he does show up there and what he can do in that difficult setting. host: marc, good morning. caller: i heard you say some about ron paul that was a little bit off. i have a question. ron paul, i am retired navy. ron paul has more support and gets more donations than twice as many of the other candidates combined. what he said was closing down bases overseas, blaming the people back home. this would stimulate the economy. when i was overseas, all of my money went to spain. all of my excess money was going

to those economies. all of my money, when i was buying stuff, went to those economies. he wants to bring them back. he is not a chicken hawk, like newt gingrich. he actually serve his country. the service people in your state should think about that, before they vote for newt gingrich. that having those bases here would stimulate support in the san diego area? guest: a good point. i know that dr. paul has a lot of support amongst people in service right now. i know the people were only trying to say what other republicans have told me, that the military minded, not necessarily those that serve in the service, they have people

who are military minded and people actually in the service that might have an issue of closing down those bases. that is not the point i was trying to make. he certainly does have support amongst the military. host: one of the points from your newspaper is that the south carolina economy has had a $13 billion in flux because of these military bases. guest: that is absolutely right. i know that anytime we have an issue with the military, business leaders and political leaders start touting that fact, that the economic indicator is certainly very important to south carolina. host:caller: i called because i

notice that you mentioned how newt gingrich has made his campaign about attacking romney, and the irony i find in that is that the entire gop field has made their campaigns viable by attacking obama. fair or unfair, i am not here to debate that the day but i think that even sarah palin said that it is not negative campaigning, and in this case, not attacking capitalism to question mitt romney on the number of jobs he has destroyed if the estop the hundreds of thousands of jobs he said he created. when you consider those who lost their jobs over the last few years, the last thing those people want is somebody who represents the face of a person who fired them, and with those words having come out of his mouth. even if you were to counter that obama did the same thing that romney did with bain, obama can

say that he has never prospered over anyone losing their job. i think if you are going to vote republican in, the only person i thought to would of been liable would of been jon huntsman. i wonder if you could even do that, because the entire republican party has ignored the guy, and as far as romney's flip-flops on abortion, the ability to change his mind would have more weight if they cannot seem he was so easily swayed. host: a: a common. adam beam. guest: romney is going have to deal with this bain capital issue. i think the caller had a good point to get -- about profiting bird certainly when ronnie's company made those businesses, they profited personally. i do not think the president

showed any profit personally from his dealings with the auto industry. that would be an argument that they would have to figure out a good way to refute. us pay our last call from south carolina is chock from st. louis -- chuck. caller: i am similar to the last caller. governor romney's actions with bain, i think it really defines the debate on who is trying to destroy. one group will say that it is big business and the others say it is big government. when you look at this 30-minute thing on romney, and the numbers up into the tens of thousands of people laid off, you think that they're really can -- that defines the question. guest: i certainly think that is a question that romney's detractors want to be the

defining question. as to whether or not that will gain traction here in south carolina, who is to say? we help which we still have debates to go and there are times to -- you will see that, lot in these nationally televised debates. there is time for that argument to gain traction here. it could very well work. host: i will ask this question both ways. bear with me because i don't want you -- answer this question. mitt romney will win on south carolina because -- guest: because of a combination of factors, the electability issue the republicans here believe that he can win the nomination, important to them, for contempt -- for south carolina to continuing that tradition of selecting a nominee. and also the split in the conservative/evangelical vote.

the polls show that evangelical voters make up 60% of primary voters here. when they can be as fragmented as much as they are among all these different candidates, it will certainly help a candidate like romney. host: and conversely, mitt romney will lose south carolina because of what? guest: if he loses here, it will be because of an extraordinary efforts against him that coalesces behind one candidate. there are a lot of barriers to that. it could happen over the next six days. i think you saw that yesterday in houston, the first attempt at that, to go -- building momentum behind one candidate. but the question becomes who is that candidate and how you picked that candidate? polls would be showing gingrich the most likely candidate for that because he is the closest to mitt romney. others argue that rick santorum

with his conservative /evangelical conviction as has the better shot at rallying that base. host: the newspaper is one of our partners in the 2012 campaign. we want to thank adam beam for joining us. his work is available on-line. we appreciate your perspective before the south carolina vote. guest: thank you for having me. host: we will continue our conversation with the author of this vote -- this book, "the swing vote." later we will focus on guantanamo bay 10 years later. should it be closed, and if so, the alternative? "washington journal" continues on a sunday, january 50. the martin luther king holiday weekend and we are back in a moment. ♪ >> the south carolina primary

saturday, january 21. since 1980, the winner has gone on to be the republican presidential nominee. our coverage takes you to the candidate events. >> and i think you have to say this has been a failed presidency. i do not think he is tried to make a bed. he just did not know what to do. he is over said. we have a message that can appeal not just in south carolina but across this nation and in particular in the state's that are necessary for us to win this election. >> as candidates get their message out and meet voters. yet another war that we do not know what we're accomplishing and why we're there. and we just leave and it is a bigger mess. and if we're on the use national security assets, our elements of power, we need to make sure that it is in our national security interest in that we are not spread so thin. that we cannot do it right. >> i do, here we go. take a picture. we want to put this on our pets with a new page. >> perfect.

>> find more resources at our campaign web site with more video from the campaign trail. read the latest from the candidates, political reporters, and people like you from social media sites. c-span.org. >> i believe that it is important to emphasize that while it is great to have this memorial to his memory, and it is great to have a national holiday, and it is great to have streets and schools and hospitals named in his honor all over our nation and world, it is also important to not place too much emphasis on martin luther king, the icol, but not enough emphasis on the ideals of martin luther king, jr. >> tackle looked at his life and legacy, and race relations in america day online at the c-span video library research, watch, clip, and share. it is what you want when you

want. >> in this episode at that check studio, we will take a look at prepare a's surprising comments on climate change in the site is behind the research. >> i think there are substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data. >> what i'd do is a rate different comments by politicians on a one-forced sale. if you say something really outrageous, you will get for pinocchios. if you get something slightly out of context, you might get as little as one pinocchio. >> glenn kessler evaluates and rates the truthfulness of political figures and others. >> whether they are deliberately lying, if a politician says the same thing over and over again, even when it has been pointed out as untrue, that they know that it is essentially an true, and they are just going to say it anyway. >> glenn kessler tonight at 8:00

on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back to suspend the author of this book, q q the swing vote -- the untapped power of independents." this can be seen in your words. our broken political system is ridiculous, embarrassing, and dysfunctional. explain. guest: i think polls have shown that is what a majority of americans think about the political system. i think the increasing number of independent voters, unaffiliated voters all of the country, the democratic and republican parties are losing voters. so clearly they have got a problem. it is now 40% of all registered voters independent or unaffiliated, more than either democrats or republicans. has been how you fix it and reform the system? you say at the conclusion of your book, "in order for change

to happen, independent voters must get involved and make it clear what they want from their leaders and insist on action. guest: i exactly feel that. hopefully my book will be of little bit of the voice crying in the wilderness and will get them motivated. i am hoping they will have entered the independent voters are mad, they are frustrated, they are upset, they are disgusted with the money, if they discussed it with the influence of its special interests, they are disgusted with the dysfunction. they did not like the government does not seem to be attracting -- addressing serious problems of the country and what action. but what they need to do is make their voices heard more, the independent voters. a spaying if you're one of those independent voters, we want to hear from -- from you for this segment only. we want democrats and republicans to hold off. we think it will be more interesting to hear from true

swing voters. please abide by that questions. independencts only. only for the next 45 minutes. the rest of you will have a chance to weigh in with many of the programs here on the "washington journal." let's go back to the scalpel on friday, an interesting look at the rise of the independence -- the gallup poll on friday, an interesting look at the rise of the independent voter. it was essentially one-third for each year. now republicans are 27%, 31% for self-described democrats, and independents going from the mid 30's to more than 40%. guest: that is right. and as i said, the independent voters are tired.

they are a voting bloc that really everyone should be paying attention to. i think candidates pay lip service to attracting their votes in the general election, but in half the states of the nation, independent voters cannot vote in the primary. that's frankly and democratic. it is not a fully democratic season. they pay for those elections with their tax dollars in the cannot bode. in a state like new hampshire where they can vote, and south carolina also does not register by party, so they can participate in the south carolina primary. of spain was also sought independence + -- plus paying florida is close. should states change the law to let independent voters voted primary? guest: i feel very strongly that they should. that is one of the main reforms

that i am proposing, that independent voters be allowed to vote in all 50 states in the primaries. i think you would see very different candidates nominated. i think you see more centrist candidates who ran it -- to appeal to a broader range of people. host: you could say that jon huntsman is one of those people. he came in as a distant third in new hampshire. he is still a distant in the polls. guest: they voted first for ron paul. he got the most percentage of independent votes. then they voted for from the and then they voted for huntsman. that was the breakdown of independent voters in new hampshire. it could be argued that mitt romney is a more centrist republican candidate than many, so that he did appeal to independents. but the ron paul though it is a real wake-up call. his success in ohio and new hampshire is a wake-up call.

it reflects what independent voters feel about the broken this of the system and wanting what they want s.a. iconoclast, someone not like a typical politician. host: the house back on tuesday. rift on the right, a divergent paths for republican leaders in congress. expect more internal tensions in 2012. i mention this because i want to go back your book. this quote. briefs only been a few times -- guest: that is right. typically in times of crisis. after 9/11, we saw the parties come together for a bridge -- for a very brief moments, in national unity over our shared threats. but even when something quite

serious like the raising of the debt ceiling and as a more -- this enormous debt that we face, the parties cannot come together and that the bank of spain why is it so hard to fix the system, change the system -- the parties cannot come together and fix that. host: why can they cannot come together? guest: can work together in state legislators and in redistricting. it is a prime example. you have probably only 50-60 truly competitive congressional districts in the entire country. the rest are designed or are carved out to be a rather sese for a republican or democrat -- safe seat for the republican of a democrat. host: our guest is linda killian.

can you elaborate? guest:, absolutely. swing voters are a larger block of voters than either democrats or republicans. if they would get mad and active, they could be a real force. i talk about four different constituencies of the independent vote. i talk about ncr republicans, moderate republicans who are what we have considered rockefeller republicans. i talk about america first democrats who are what we would call reagan democrats, working- class blue-collar, more conservative democrats. i talk about young people, the facebook generation. young people under 35 are registered as independent than

half -- at a percentage higher than any other age group. and then the suburban voters, they are the ciders. -- deciders. they voted for barack obama, they voted for democratic congress in 2006, but in 2010, they voted very significantly republican. host: we will go back to the starbucks mom and dad's and the millennial slater in the program. we are asking to hear just from independents. the so-called swing vote, always crucial in any election. sean joins us in washington, d.c. caller: my problem is that because we do not have an influence in the primary, a lot of times that candidates that we have to choose from are pretty

lousy and you cannot trust their word. so how do we influence candidates? guest: i heard that. when i went around the country and did focus groups with independent voters, i heard that over and over. you use the word lousy and that is what i heard. they are much more independent and dissatisfied with their choices in the general election than either republicans or democrats, because as i said, in half the states of the country, they cannot -- the district of columbia is one place where independent voters cannot vote in the primary. one thing to do is to push the state legislatures, if your and the state -- if you are in a state like that, push them and tell them that you want open primaries to for dissipate. host: one of our viewers saying,

why can we not get rid of the electoral college? guest: that is one issue that i do not see as directly linked to independent voters. that is another issue about democracy and direct democracy. i do not really deal with that in the book. host: linda joins us -- linda joined -- belinda joins us. good morning. caller: i am registered republican only because i cannot vote in the primary is an independent. i think it is time the that changed every place. we're supposed to have one vote for one person. and yet we still have the electoral college that we put into power, and they do not have to vote the way their constituents say. host: there is a famous. guest: maybe i am starting the -- there is a theme.

guest: maybe i'm starting to move in here. caller: i would like to start out with a disagreement with the lady here. i am very proud of the political system. i have a 5-year-old now and we are teaching him everything and he eats it up like the macaroni and cheese. i think it is the behavior is underneath the political system that was it are really research project that we're really disturbed with. my wife is from colombia, and and us being a minority, she gets all the spectrums. one of the behaviors that i dislike, like the iowa caucuses just held. are recounting is going on and

rick santorum may end up being the winner. my wife does not understand that system and how that could possibly be. why can we get the accounting right? also, the bain capito behavior. i'm a registered democrat but i am independent and i voted for barack obama but now i am supporting rich santorum. the behavior in the system among the candidates and how they are behaving with the public, you know, i do not think they understand there are not children watching. high school is watching, and the number of the behaviors they erred giving out leads back to her book as to why the 18-year- old are independent because they are skeptical about that george bushs. host: thank you for the call.

guest: the thing that really resonated with me is that there are children watching. i think that is exactly the way i feel about this. i love this system, believe me. i am very patriotic, i began the book with thomas paine and i talk about how thomas paine came up with a very important document, common sense, in the american revolution. and he was expecting a democratic government to be governed by the people. it was a revolutionary idea. i am proposing we go back to the ideals of a true democratic republic. when you mentioned the children, i close the book with the tucson shooting and with christine in green. that lovely young girl who was killed in tucson.

and she used a light to read -- wear red, white, and blue. she was very patriotic and thought it was a great country. and it is. it is just some of the ways that we are practicing politics that have gone off kilter. host: she was born on september 11. you write in the book -- guest: not to be too grandiose but that is what i did with swing vote. that's the way i feel about the swing vote. to some extent, i have been a political reporter all my adult life, cover politics, local, state, and national. like many independent voters, i've become increasingly frustrated and concerned about the system. host: the subtitle is the untapped power of independents.

according to the latest gallup poll, the president has 46% john approval among all adults. among democrats, 81%. guest: independent voters did vote for barack obama in 2008. in going around the country and doing focus group interviews, most of them about a year ago when i was collecting information for the book, at that point a lot of the independent voters were on the fence about barack obama. i would suspect polls indicate it is pretty much the same right now event they are waiting for the republicans to nominate a candidate. they are waiting to see what will happen. they are unhappy about the economy and they are just waiting to see. they are not sold on barack obama's reelection but they have not decided absolutely not to vote for him again.

host: our guest is a senior fellow with the wilson center. she has written columns and for the washington post. she is the author of acute the freshman -- what happened to the republican revolution." caller: i like to point out and i am sure she is aware of this, [unintelligible] it does not represent its own party platform. i am disgusted democrat and i do not believe what barack obama has done is in good faith with those of us who are populist, who elected him. for example, i am very worried that he is going to allow us to get into a situation in iran.

i think independents have to get together and vote their consciences about the bigger picture. though that incumbents from both parties. guest: a lot of independents feel that way appeared that is why you see the swings. it is hard to organize independent voters because they are independent by nature. i think there are a few groups that are starting to try to tap into the independent sentiment. there is a coffee party. there is no labels. there is a record called independent voting -- a group called the independentvoting .org. one group will nominate an

independent candidate all online. i think you have the seeds of a movement here. i think you have the stirrings of something here. host: let me ask you about america's electorate that organization has one of the biggest challenges back in 1992 when ross perot was running, each state has a different set of rules. virginia is very different from maryland and very different from california. their effort is to get a place on the ballot and then nominated candidate. how viable is that? guest: i think they're going to do it. they have $20 million in seed money. i would be surprised if they did not get on the ballot in most if not all 50 states. us paying does that talk about the problems where the republicans and democrats control the state legislatures and control the names on the ballot? guest: that is why they are

lucky to have will the people behind their organization. most independent candidates do not have those sorts of resources for that is why it is so difficult. you mentioned ross perot in 1992. he got 19% of the vote. that is not an insignificant percentage. but he was very wealthy and he was able to finance his own run. host: our guest is linda killian. charles is on the phone. caller: let me tell you first, i voted for reagan, for the other bush, i voted for clinton, i voted for obama. currently my biggest concern is that i think we both -- hello? host: let's go to detroit, michigan. about theu're talking

possibility of a third party. have had enough of both the republicans and democrats. there is no way i'm going to vote for either obama or romney in november. where do i go? will there be a laudable third- party ever in america? guest: that is the question. the independent voters, i heard what you just shared, i heard that all of the country. there is no unified sentiment, i think, among independent voters, about whether we should establish a third independent party, or whether we should reform the democratic and republican parties. some independent voters believe they just want the republicans and democrats to pay more attention to them, to shape up, clean themselves up. some believe is going to take the establishment of a third- party.

again, we are just in the very beginnings of this evening i really cannot answer that. i think this time around, probably very realistically, it would not be liable for a third- party candidate to win, for example. but if americans elect get someone on the ballot, i could they got on the ballot i could see them getting 10% to 50% of the vote, which sends a message to both parties. host: joseph joins us on our twitter page. he wonders -- host: -- guest: well, this is sort of my book. i sort of created a language. my independent voters are swing voters. the independent voters, just like we heard from the call from vermont, he voted for reagan, bush, clinton, and obama. that is a swing voter.

probably on the local level, vermont is a democratic state. the voters that i am interested in are the centrist, true swing voters, who do not have an allegiance to either party, who vote by the candidate, and to pick and choose and mix up their ballots. host: those states most self- identified with independent voters, rhode island, alaska, new hampshire -- about half of those residents say that they are independent. massachusetts, 49%. vermont, 49%. this, from mary. where are they getting their dollars from? do you know?

guest: from wealthy people who are giving the money. host: houston, good morning. caller: i started out as a democrat, and i voted for obama. i would vote for him again after seeing the clown car of republicans out there. as far as organizing a last- minute third-party, does that not tamper with the election? i am on food stamps, so i guess i am on the bandwagon of the food stamp president. as far as being independent, i

recycle and repurchase homes. at least, i used to. with 50 states, everyone wants to do their own thing. getting a national movement that would be the concordance of office and state, washington, d.c. does not even get to be a state. look at these governors running for president. they get 1 foot in the door -- look at rick perry, what is he doing for texas? guest: sure raises the concern that if you have an independent party candidate, of ron paul decides to run as a libertarian, if there is an american select candidates, how will that affect the vote? we saw that with ralph nader, when he ran, with people feeling

that it affected the ultimate outcome in 2000. i do not have an answer for that. i think that to make an omelet, you have to break some eggs, i guess. to build an independent movement, i do not know what to say, it could impact the outcome of the election. >> -- host: soccer moms became legendary in the 1990's. you broke it down into four categories. first of all, the npr republicans, socially moderate, fiscally conservative, turned away by the gop embrace of the religious right. influential in new england. second, living in the rust belt, the american first democrats, mostly male, standing -- standing for traditional american values. the millennial, mistrustful of

organized groups and the two- party system, least reliable to turn out a less motivated by a core issue. fourth, the starbucks moms and dads, the largest voting bloc, tend to be socially moderate, acceptable of the government -- skeptical of the government, education and national security issues being keep. >> -- guest of those are the four key constituencies of the swing voting bloc, as i see it. host: bill, good morning. caller: i am independent, but i had to register republican to vote for ron paul. i was also in boston in 2000 and i saw ralph nader physically removed from the presidential debates by the state police. he not only was not allowed in the republican vs. democrat

debate at the jfk library, but he was not even able to enter the building. can your guests talk about how these private corporations took control of these debates that the republicans and democrats -- i would love to see the day when c-span has no republican line and democrat line. that we are all just reclaiming our identity as americans. and when we go to the voting booth, they are just names. i am curious about the control of the debates by the two parties. i will listen off fare. >> i do not know that i can speak specifically to that debate. but i think you mentioned florida. yes, florida does not permit you to vote as an independent in the primary.

so, you registered as a republican. california is experimenting with a talk two system. well, not experimenting, they passed it by a ballot initiative. that is the thing that is going to be, the top two vote-getters, they will go on to the general ballot. host of the commission has been organizing the debate since 1988. before that, it was the lead of voters. the first round of debates was organized by the major networks in the 60's. if you would like to get more information on these debates, the website is cpd.org. from jim, this question -- how real will that be?

guest: some of the talk in the republican primary, some of the supposed to talk about capitalism, or mitt romney's behavior, it touches on -- what is interesting is the right and the far right and the far left kind of converge here on this idea of that the occupy wall street and right kind of people that would be voting for ron paul in this idea -- i heard this over and over as i interviewed independent voters. this idea that the system is stacked against average people. there is one set of rules for the wealthy, for bank executives, wall street executives, and politicians, and one set of rules for everyone else. this is the sentiment that a share on the right and the left. host: if you are listening on c- span radio, our guest is linda killian.

her book, "the swing vote." colorado, we are hearing from independent's only on this segment. caller: good morning. thank you for your program. host: yes, good morning. caller: your program and programs like it, publicly financed, is where most of us will get an unbiased look at things. money, money, money. guest: i heard that over and over from the independent voters. that they are very upset about the campaign financing, lobbyist influence. they feel that big money donors have the years of congress and political leaders and that they do not and that it is very difficult for them to get the attention of the members of congress and that in the book, in the last chapter, there were

action items. reasonable, small, doable, leading up to the improvements in the system. make small contributions, if you can afford it. then you will have some skin in the game. i am talking under $100. there will be scanned in the game and even say that i was a donor and i would like to schedule a meeting to talk about something. host: you write about mark warner in the book. lynch, in new hampshire. tom coburn, in oklahoma. former senator evan bye, former senator charlie crist.

in all of these conversations, was there a general theme? >> -- guest: it is amazing, when someone gets out of elective office, how can they become about how rotten the system is. about how difficult it is for said interest to get anything done. has been very candid. mark warner, who i had a big piece about, plan of what we talked about in the book, he is a centrist democrat, pro- business, liberal on social issues, but he was one of the gang of six working to solve deficit issues and he ran up against a brick wall from the leadership in terms of trying to get the parties together to work something out. host: robert, tennessee, good

morning. trying one more time. john, los angeles? caller: i am a ron paul independent. there is no way that we will vote for any kind of neocon republican. caller: you will see -- you will see people writing ron paul in. if he does not run as a libertarian, you may see some people writing him in in 2012. there were voters that did that in 2008. host: your next, susan. i am disappointed that the governors and people that say -- caller: i am disappointed that

these governors are going for romney and that the rest of them are washington insiders. guest: a message that i have set -- heard over and over. what i have said about ron paul, although i do not know that your last caller would agree with me, the support for ron paul is not as much about ron paul himself. it is a protest vote. they want to send a message. they want something different. it is more about the voters than ron paul. host: john, new mexico, go ahead. caller code morning. linda, if i were to characterize the american voter, i would characterize them as disconnected but still running. i mean they listen to these advertisements and the golan autopilot. i just finished a book called

"republic lost." in which they talk about the effect of money in politics. i do not see any great changes until we make some changes in the amount of money spent on these campaigns. when you have the koch brothers spending $5 million here. when you have these major donors who spend this money and we do not even know who they are, and we will not know who they are until the 31st of january, how can we have a democracy? guest: the influence of money is a big problem. with citizens united and that decision, it says that corporations can spend money. that a lot of the money is unregulated, and reported. third-party groups are going to be very active. they had them in the primaries and they will be more active in

the general election. it is a big concern, i think. i honestly have to say that i do not know the answer. we passed the mccain fine gold campaign finance reform. it is a very difficult problem. money almost always finds a way. host: for nearly half a century , following the candidates and talking to voters, david broder. you acknowledge him in your book. what did you learn from him? guest: he was an amazing friend and mentor. at the beginning he advised me a bit. i told him about the idea for this book and how was planning to structure it. he suggested maybe misery or

minnesota as swing states. i did not take that recommendation. i hope that he would be proud of this book. he always enjoyed putting those voices in his stories and columns. i think that that is what i try to do in this book. i think that independent voters will recognize themselves in this book. they will meet the 90-room grandmother from the hampshire, the suburban mother from alexandria, virginia. i think that they will identify with what they hear in the book. host: rachel, good morning. caller: neither party wants to tell us the true reason that there are no jobs. they do not want to make those

companies mad so that they will not fund their campaigns. our jobs were taken away from us by nafta. 55,000 moved overseas and they are not telling us the true reason why there is no jobs. they want to repeal obama-care. why not nafta? guest of the book definitely touches on the point you just raised. you may be a classic, america first democrat. ohio is a good example of a state of a place that feels the loss of american manufacturing. it is true, lobbyists, and in the tax code, corporations can write off moving expansions -- expenses to move their jobs overseas. how is that good for the economy? we need to look at this and

reform the tax code so that we reward behavior that creates jobs here. host: the first words of our political system -- are you optimistic or pessimistic for change? >> i would say that i am in the middle. host: a swing voter. guest: that is right. [laughter] i am cautiously optimistic that it will change, but it will require the effort. democracy is a participatory sport. what i say in the book is that you have to do more than about. new have to get involved and make your voice is heard. you have to attend public meetings and join groups that you think represent your views. you have to communicate with elected officials and push for change. and then i think that change is

possible. host: linda, thank you so much for being with us. caller: thank you for having me -- guest: thank you for having me. host: the opening of a military facility in cuba. guantanamo bay. a look back at why it was installed and what the future of it is. obama promised to shut it down, but it remains open at a high price for american taxpayers. nancy keller, keeping track of c-span radio programs. >> beginning at noon, eastern time, you can hear replays of five network television talk shows. we begin with "meet the press." it will include harry reid and newt gingrich. from south carolina, lindsey

gramm and congressman scott. "this0 p.m., here abc's week." guests today include steven colbert and rick perry. at 2:00 p.m., "fox news sunday." chris wallace talks to newt gingrich boss super pak. at 3:00 p.m., "state of the union. story -- with david axelrod and reverend brad eakins, as well as bob jones. finally, 4:00 p.m., even here face the nation. also, the author of a new book, the obama's."

we ears begin at noon eastern -- re-airs began at noon eastern. listen to them all, here on c- span radio, 90.1 fm in the washington, d.c. area. nationwide on satellite radio. or listen anywhere with c-span radio.org. >> since 1980, the winner of the south carolina primary has gone on to be the republican presidential nominee. the road to the white house coverage takes you through the events. >> -- clip: this has been a failed presidency. clip: the messages have failed across the nation, particularly in the states that are

necessary for this election. clout -- clip: this is yet another war where we do not know what we are accomplishing. clip: we are going to use our elements of power and make sure that it is in our national security efforts and that we are not spread so thin that we cannot do it right. clip: take a picture. you want to put this up. clip: perfect. >> find more video from the campaign trail and read the latest from candidates and political reporters at c- span.org/campaign2012. clip: it is important to emphasize that while it is great to have this memorial to his memory, it is great to have

streets, schools, hospitals, and this national holiday, named after him, it is also important not to put too much emphasis on martin luther king the idle, and not enough on the ideals of martin luther king jr.. >> take a look at the life and legacy of dr. martin luther king jr., the civil rights movement, online at the c-span library. what you want, when you want. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome david cole, from the georgia and university school of law. guest: thank you for having me. host: january 11, 2012, guantanamo bay was opened. why was the facility located in

cuba? of what was the original goal? guest: there were two reasons to but the detainee is there. one, it is a safe and relatively easy to secure place. it is far away from anything, it is an island that we have control basically for forever. the second reason is less noble, which is that the bush administration felt that no law would apply, if we put people there. that they could argue that the detainees were not entitled to u.s. law or laws allow -- of yore. host: not just the cost per prisoner, it is about $19,000 for prisoner in the state of florida.

at the colorado super max, with 171 prisoners in guantanamo bay. the cost is up to $800,000. >> that is per prisoner, whereas the typical cost is about $25,000 for year. it is very costly in terms of dollars to keep it open. vying with the statue of liberty, that is not a good thing for us in terms of our standing around the world, our image, and al qaeda boss recruitment tactics. that is why, and robert gates,

who is the their defense secretary, and john mccain has said that it would be better if they were close,. >> if you are an inmate, it is $2.29 per day prisoner. federal prisoners are $3.16. an american living alone is about $9.45. at the super-max, a detainee in guantanamo bay is $30.45.

guest: basically, because we put it on a remote island, it is not in a u.s. territory that you only get to your extraordinary measures. everything will cost more. host: opened 10 years ago this month, what is the future? guest: the president obviously failed in meeting his goal. the extent to which people in congress will begin to pay attention to how much this is costing us not only in terms of the dollar's the talked-about, but in our image abroad. what is stopping us at present is congress.

they have put restrictions on detainees from guantanamo, so the you cannot count -- transport them to the united states, for any purpose. even to put them on trial. even if we determine that a person was innocent, we could not bring them to the united states to release them. they have put very with a promise that the person will pose no threat in the future and that the foreign government will share all of this intelligence with us. transfers from guantanamo has frozen -- have frozen. host: you can join the

conversation by e-mail, journal@c-span.org, or by twitter. twitter.com/c-spanwj. this is from "the miami herald." 171 detainees. guest: some of those costs, presumably we would have those even if they were being kept in the united states. the others would be sick man -- substantially diminished, as the obama administration would like.

host: the headline, "guantanamo, the most expensive prison caller: could you answer me a question? this money is a shame and a crime as our country careens towards bankruptcy. not only did president obama there to close it, he signed the authorization act which allows someone to decide that any one of us in america can be a threat or somehow all lined with forces that they say are against a national interest. any one of us could be scooped up by the military and detained without trial indefinitely. we may have to build another fortress on guantanamo bay to hold us all. guest: it is a troubling piece of legislation.

it is a massive defense spending bill. it had a number of provisions that dealt with military detention and with guantanamo. president obama was opposed to those provisions. he threatened to veto the bill because of those provisions, which were put in by members of congress over his administration's objection. at the end of the day, after threatening to veto the bill, the conference committee between the senate and house worked out a language that the obama administration felt that they could live with. some of that language is the language you referred to which codifies existing judicial decisions and administration decisions regarding the authority of the administration to detain persons who are fighting for al qaeda, the

taliban, or associated for says. -- forces. that is a troubling provision. this was not at the administration to decker urging. it was over their objections. host: can you define heebie -- define he habeus corpus? >guest: it is an ancient ripped -- write that we got from england and is recognized in our constitution. it shall not be suspended except in times of rebellion or invasion when the public safety shall require it. it is the right of a person who is locked up to go to court and say, i am being illegally detained. it is about as basic a right as you can get because if you do not have a, what is the value of all of the other rights in the constitution? much of their litigation about guantanamo was whether or not

detainee's had a right to come into court. the administration initially said no, absolutely not. no right to lawyers. the supreme court said the statute is saying that there is a right of the detainees to come into court. the administration went to congress and congress repealed the statute that said they had a right to come into court. the supreme court said that the detainees have a constitutional right, so even where congress and the president had said that the door to the courthouse is close to these people, the supreme court said, no, they have a constitutional right. they have filed many petitions here in d.c. many of them have been found by the district courts to be wrongfully held because there is no adequate evidence that they were fighting for the enemy.

host: who is left? guest: that is a good question. initially, -- i do not know how many were brought there, initially. 7079 people are held at guantanamo now. that is a high number. over 600 of them have been released. 530 were released by president bush and another 70 or 80 have been released by president obama. what is left is 171 people. at what we know about them is that each one of them has had their cases reviewed by a joint committee of the military intelligence and that they have determined that 89 of those people -- more than half, do not need to be detained. it should be released. yet, they continue to be detained because of these congressional restrictions that were part of the ndaa that says, you cannot transfer them to the

u.s. and you cannot release them to third countries absentees' extraordinary promises. host: we have nikole less than a pressure for 21 years. here law degree from yale law school. he is a correspondent for a magazine and a staff for the center for constitutional rights. our call is banned. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to point out that this is a terrible example of political pandering at its worst. anytime you have a president that makes a promise and has three years, essentially, to follow through with that and has failed -- this president did have two

years of a democrat-controlled congress that he could pass a health-care bill and a cash bill. we are not able to close guantanamo. guest: excellent point. it was the democratically controlled congress that initially blocked president obama's efforts to close guantanamo. it is a kind of -- is not partisan politics. it is not that the republicans are blocking president obama, it is republicans and democratic congressman are blocking president obama because they do not want to be responsible for having any guantanamo detainee, even when was the determined by the military to be no threat, to be in their jurisdiction. they do not want an even if they are in a maximum-security facility from which no one has

ever escape. it is not in my backyard politics. the caller makes a good the point. had president obama chosen to fight on this issue on closing guantanamo, who knows? we might have been able to persuade members of congress -- there might have been more education and public opinion on this issue and we might have closed guantanamo. at least initially, the decision was made by the chief of staff that health care and guantanamo at the same time was not possible. he chose health care. they did health care. that does not explain why they're still not fighting about closing guantanamo. in a very serious way. we have not heard president obama come out and make a speech about why guantanamo should be closed since may of 2009. host: how many prisoners have

been proven guilty in guest: a court of: -- in a court of law? guest: 895. -- it might be five. there have been several military commission that trials of guantanamo detainees. most of them have ended in the guilty pleas. the people pled guilty in exchange for the united states agreeing to release them. it is a kind of perverse situation in which there are better off pleading guilty because they get off the island and sent back to their country. david hicks was the first one to plead guilty. he was an australian man who pled guilty and we sent him back to australia. he spent six months in prison and he is a free man today. same thing happened with a young canadian man who was released

after pleading guilty. there have been a few convictions, but they are very few and far between. compare that to convictions in the united states in terrorist trials in ordinary federal criminal courts. we have had about 400 convictions since 9/11 on terrorist charges. many of them are trumped up charges under a very broad statute. it requires material support. nonetheless, hundreds of convictions for the federal criminal courts -- very few of the guantanamo detainees through military courts. host: some background on the guantanamo bay detentions' facility. it opened on january 11, 2002. it initially had several hundred inmates. it is part of a 45-square-mile

base in cuba. a u.s. military base. it holds 1071 prisoners. ar are awaiting trial in wo trials. 46 have been held indefinitely. there is a briefing on monday. >> i am aware of the obstacles to getting that done as quickly as the president wanted to get it done. [video clip] >> of the president's commitment has not changed at all. it is the right thing to do for our national security interest. that is an opinion shared by the president but senior members of the military and as well as his predecessor -- guest: that is right. anyone who has paid close attention to this issue, the military people, the intelligence people, the state

department people, the law enforcement people, those who have to work with our allies abroad, those who have to watch al qaeda recruiting -- everybody agrees that guantanamo is a net loss for us where we are losing by creating more terrorist than we are gaining by -- through security. we can get the security we need by holding those who need to be held here in the u.s., releasing those who should be released and we have determined can be released, and trying those who can be tried. because of the restrictions that congress has imposed, we are stuck in this kind of stasis. guantanamo remains the best recruitment tactics that al qaeda has. host: jim says, close it down. close it down, now. during the conversation at

twitter.com/cspanwj. host: mike, good morning. caller: why can we build this prison -- why do we not build this prison in alaska? guest: we could put it anywhere. a lot of these very secure federal facilities are in difficult places to get to. far from any kind of significant residential population end. easy to secure. we have places in the greater -- united states that we could certainly secure as a facility. again, the original decision to put guantanamo -- was a decision that by doing so, the administration could argue, they do not have any legal rights. the supreme court has said that they do have legal rights.

guantanamo does not keep them away from their legal rights. bring in here would not give them additional legal rights. it is really what we would -- we would be closing down a symbol that hurts us and maintaining our security. host: we welcome our viewers on the abc's parliament channel. next is richard. caller: good afternoon. thank you for having me on c- span. i have a question related to this issue. i do not mean to sound horrible. a from an international perspective, a european perspective, we cannot understand how you have a military base in cuba when you still have the embargo on the island. that question needs to be looked at. for us, there is no reason for that. equally, i would say that when

president bush was in office, he said that we are going to have a war on terrorism. that includes all terrorists, not just islamic terrorists. i am catholic. you still have websites on line from organizations that used to fund irish terrorism. why are you so selective as to the type of people you in prison? host: 2 are for watching us. guest: it is odd that we have this military facility on the sovereign territory of one of our he claimed enemies -- proclaimed enemies. it is a historical artifact. at one time, we negotiated a lease with cuba.

it is a remarkable least that any apartment owner in new york city would like to have because it can be terminated only by a joint consent of both of the parties. it is $1 per year. it is a pretty good deal for us. $1 per year and they cannot kick us out under the lease. apparently, fidel castro does not cash the check. as to the selectivity of the use of this attention power, i do think that there is a political problem with to get called a terrorist and who does not. as ronald reagan said, one man's terrorist is another man to attack fighter. the principal for who is detained at guantanamo is supposed to be those who are

engaged in the ongoing conflict between the u.s. and al qaeda and the taliban that is centered in afghanistan. that is an ongoing war ended wartime, countries detain those who are fighting against them. we are not fighting a war against the remnants of the ira or hamas. we are fighting a war in afghanistan and so the detainee's should, if they are lawfully detained under the laws of war, the tide to that particular ongoing conflict. host: a legal question. you in the government -- who in the government thinks that -- thought the constitution only applied in said the u.s.? >> that was the position that the bus administration chose -- bush administration took in the

courts. they've prevailed on that position in the district court and the hearings of the district of columbia. it was not until they got to the supreme court that they work denied. -- were denied. constitutional guarantees apply to all people within the u.s., regardless of whether you are a foreign national or an illegal alien. beyond our borders, they apply if you are a citizen. if the u.s. -- if someone is punished in london, he can raise questions about it. the supreme court said, where it is not impractical to extend constitutional rights to a place

like guantanamo, the rights should extend. that is the theory on which threads were extended. host: years after guantanamo bay opened under the bush administration, it remains open. we are talking about this military facility. 171 detainees at a cost of $800,000 per detainee. the most expensive prison in u.s. control . tony, from austin. good morning. caller: this topic is really important. when the professor axe to relieve -- actually stated that the goal was to place the individuals outside of the law, i was reminded of gangsters who have offshore brothels or money laundering. i think about an executive bush or obama who take an oath to protect the constitution

against all enemies, instead, they show thinking patterns which are more likely gangsters. guest: there is certainly a troubling aspect of using the kind of geographical boundaries and. -- playing with where you detain people in order to keep them from the courts. that was one of the things that made guantanamo such a black mark are around the world for the u.s. we go around the world saying, we are upholders of the rule of law. our state department issues human rights report on everyone. here, we were taking human beings and putting them in a place that we said, no law protected them. we use tactics to interrogate them that it rose to the letter of torture in a number of instances. -- level of torture in a number

of instances. that is why has the negative connotations that it has today. however, guantanamo is not necessarily responsible for those connotations' if we had set at the beginning, we had the right under international law to hold people who are fighting against us, but we will give them hearings to make sure that they are people fighting against us and not a shepherd who is picked up for the bounty. we will treat them humanely and give them the protections of the -- and we will release them when the conflict with al qaeda and the taliban is over. when we pull out. had we done that, i do not think guantanamo would be the embarrassment that it is today. we said, they have no right to hearings. they have no right to law. they can be interrogated using cruel and inhuman tactics where we consider it necessary.

initially, our position was, they will be detained as long as the war on global terror boson. it was defined as a war at a global reach. obviously, it is not a war that would ever conceptually and. host: the president signed the national defense authorization act which includes a provision what he'd guantanamo bay open. -- keeps at guantanamo bay open. is the president talking about closing it or is he talking about streamlining government? guest: he could do both. it is a win-win situation. close of, you save money. we would be streamlining. host: frank is joining us from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. obama has done everything anti-

civil rights. protesters are considered low level terrorists. if you look at all of the running candidates on the republican side, they support ndaa. that is anti-civil rights. host: what about that? guest: a lot has been said. some of it is true and some of it is exaggeration. a protestor -- if they say that a protestor could be detained, it says that within the united states, foreign nationals who are not green card holders or citizens who are deemed to be either part of or substantially supporting al qaeda, the taliban, or associated forces can be subject to military detention. that is essentially a

restatement of the existing law. it is troubling because congress had never before put its stamp on that law. that law has not yet been approved by the supreme court. what does it mean to substantially support to? there are concerns but it is not a realistic complaint to say that protesters will be put into detention. as to whether the current administration and the current opponents for the presidential position coming up are anti- civil rights, viewers can judge for themselves. it is worth noting that when president obama came to office, he close to the secret prisons that the cia was operating. he put an end to interrogation tactics, which was our official

program employed by the cia. he released secret memos written in the justice department at all to rise to torture. -- that authorized torture. he examined a bush's argument that he could engage in conduct that congress had made of crime as long as he was engaging the enemy. he could engage in wiretapping of u.s. citizens which congress had made a crime because he thought it was part of fighting al qaeda. president obama band that. he has continued to use military detention. he has continued to use military force. he has also continued to use the criminal process as did president bush. i think that his administration has at least saw to do so with -- within the framework of the notions of the law. whether it be constitutional or criminal law or international law.

you can dispute on many issues whether they have got it right. at least they are not saying, we will put a whole group of people beyond the law. they're saying, no, these people are protected by a lot in here is what we can do. that is a different approach. host: let us go back to ndaa that was signed on december 31 of last year. it includes money for the military, total spending of six and $62 billion. the authorization act restricts the transfer of detainees from guantanamo bay. we will listen to john, joining us from new york city. go ahead. caller: i am not surprised -- that you have these views.

the president of united states has a democratic congress. he could have done whatever he wanted. guest: he could do so only if he had the democrats on his side. the problem was, as i said before, even when he had control in congress, it is only a filibuster-proof is there on your side. a substantial number of democrats coming in a short- sighted way, said that i am not ready for anything that allows for the possibility that a single guantanamo detainee can be brought into the u.s. and possibly into by state or my jurisdiction. that is not-my-backyard politics. it undermines our security and it is not part of the issue. if the democrats were as bad as the republicans on it, it is just a short-sided focus with a blinder to the real cost that

this imposes on us around the world. host: let us go back to the cost comparison. the obama administration saying it cost $800,000 a year to keep an inmate in guantanamo. it is just under $20,000 to keep one inside the u.s. let me look good this week from a viewer saying that the president received a nobel peace prize. does he have to give it back? that is driving a lot of the conversation. guest: people give the nobel peace prize -- looking forward with some optimism and some hope. president obama has broad iraq ward to a close. he has cut is scheduled to bring the war in afghanistan to a close. he intervened in libya, although in a limited fashion. i do not know that he has to

give it back. that jury is still out on whether those who gave him the award, based on their home for the future, will in fact have their hopes blown out. host: your perspective on the 10th anniversary of the opening of guantanamo bay in cuba. appreciate your time. guest: thank you. caller: host: we continue tomorrow. is the holiday honoring martin luther king. we will be joined by the director of the americorps. it is a back to work week for the house and senate. we get a perspective from bob husak -- cusak. we discuss what is ahead for the election year. mark wolfe to talk about low- income energy assistance. that is tomorrow morning. 7:00 a.m. eastern time, 4:00 for those on the eastern time. thank you for joining us on this

sunday, january 15. i hope you enjoy the rest of your weekend. have a great week ahead. c-[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> our coverage in south carolina continues with a rick santorum town hall meeting in florence, south carolina. that is live at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the south carolina primary saturday, january 21. since 1980, the winner has gone on to be the republican presidential nominee. c-span's "road to the white house" coverage tasty to the event. >> this is in a failed presidency. i do not think he has tried to make it bad. he did not know what to do. he did not know what to do.